Why Putin Makes a Bad Ally

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intervention in the Syrian conflict has been welcomed by some as a moment for Russia to “come in from the cold," with the US and France courting him as an ally in the fight against the Islamic State. Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking.

STANFORD – Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intervention in the Syrian conflict has been welcomed by some as a moment for the Kremlin to “come in from the cold.” Russia’s conflict with the Islamic State, the argument goes, has aligned the country’s interests with those of the West. Even Turkey’s downing of a Russian warplane does not seem not to have deflated this optimism.

Indeed, at a recent press conference, US President Barack Obama again urged Putin to join the alliance against the Islamic State. And French President François Hollande billed his recent visit to Moscow as an effort to build a broad international coalition against the terrorist group.

At first blush, the idea that Russia is a natural ally against Islamist terrorists seems to make sense. The country has suffered horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists, including the bombing in November of a plane above the Sinai Peninsula, which killed 224 passengers and crew, nearly all of them Russian. Around 20 million Muslims, most of them Sunni, live within the Russian Federation, and the country’s security officials report that some 7,000 fighters from the former Soviet republics and Russia have joined the Islamic State.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

In WWII Russia was a bad ally for the Allies at first (Soviet-Nazi non-aggression past) then a very good ally (Stalingrad, Eastern front etc) later on.
So I'd say it all depends on where the Russians see their self-interest to be.

Germany and Turkey have been close allies in the past, perhaps we are seeing that relationship starting again? Puff piece from the German Institute for Economic Research? To what end?

If so it will be to the detriment of France who will seek out their old allies Russia, Poland and perfidious Albion to correct the balance.

The Europeans have gotten used to strong arming each other in meetings behind closed doors, but the Russians and the Turks like it real - real battle, real blood, real death, real territory.

I think it is Turkey that is the bad ally. It is always trying to crush the Kurds, the only effective fighters against Isis because it doesn't want to let them have the portion of South Eastern Turkey that is rightly theirs.
It is Turkey that is enabling Isis, profits from the black market in oil and drugs, it is Turkey that is attempting to create another AKP state in Syria that it will run. A state where minorities are oppressed by the ruling elite just as they are in Turkey. They tried that in Egypt and it backfired badly.

It is Turkey that is playing with fire, taking their Nato members for granted and playing with the cohesion of Europe.

Europe should look closely at Turkey and remember the lessons of history.

Even though the West is taking on ISIS in Syria, Paul R. Gregory says "Putin makes a bad ally." Despite the downing of a Russian plane over the Sinai, killing more than 200 Russians, Putin has his own agenda. It will be naive to believe that he would be interested to share our burden, just because "some 7,000 fighters" from Russia and former Soviet republics are fighting for the Islamic State, who may pose a threat, when they return one day. Perhaps for this reason Putin has been reluctant to target ISIS. Instead he helps Assad stay in power, by shelling the rebel fighters, who have been fighting the regime and seeking to topple the tyrant.
Indeed, Russia's intervention in Syria could have allowed Moscow to “come in from the cold.” Putin hoped that economic sanctions be lifted. But it was not to be. So when François Hollande visited Moscow during his whistle-stop tour he was told that Russia agreed to cooperate with France, while baulking at joining a coalition with the West.
Putin does not worry about terrorist attacks, because they would not topple him. He fears more his own people, who could unseat him. Some "20 million Muslims, most of them Sunni, live within the Russian Federation." Terrorist attacks on Russia began around 2000, in response to the ham-fisted brutality, with which Russia intervened in Chechnya and killed civilians. Foreign Islamic extremists flocked to Chechnya and fought alongside local militias The invasion of Dagestan, the bombings in Moscow and the 2004 Baslan massacre etc had been attributed to Chechen terrorists. However the Kremlin has little regard for the lives of civilians in its bloody crackdowns on terrorists. They are "acceptable if it does not threaten the regime."
Putin can rely on Russia's effective security state, which has unlimited power to "control terrorist activity." The country "spends more on internal security than it does on national defense." According to Gregory, the byzantine "design" of this security apparatus makes it difficult for an extremist group to slip under the radar, without being "infiltrated with an informant who reports to Moscow." Ordinary Russians "have virtually no protection from wiretaps or the interception of their electronic communications." Besides, "any terrorist group knows that their operations will be met with the most extreme use of force. In Beslan, for example, Russian special forces used thermobaric weapons." Putin is more eager to stay in power and maintain Russia's interests in Syria. "Working with the West to combat the Islamic State serves neither of those purposes."

Not one recommendation on what should be done, only pointing out faults in the approach of others. This article is worthless and probably even worse, counterproductive. Is the author implying that anyone in Washington cares more about defeating IS than maintaining their electoral base of which he accuses Russian leadership?

I still don't understand why it is so important to remove Assad. I remember hearing the same thing about Saddam Hussein, and his removal ignited a Sunni Shiite conflict that created ISIS.
When the propaganda begins to vilify any foreign leader, I become very skeptical of the underlying motives.

Citizens have virtually no protection from wiretaps or the interception of their electronic communications"

what? the world's most watched and overheard conversations of people in the United States!
Proof of this - the constant scandals with wiretapping and tracking someone or selection, plus a lot of money on it!
p.s
Russia to the west is the biggest enemy than ISIS

This constant badgering of Russia is counterproductive. Russia is still the 2nd most powerful country in the world from a military point of view and authors like this one treat them like they are a kind of 3rd grade dictatorship. I am pointing the finger back at America here - and saying the are always picking a fight because they need a common enemy to fund continued expenditure on their military programs.

.
My natural inclination as a freedom loving American is to condemn oppressive security states.

My natural inclination as an American who has spent the last 19 years being openly and notoriously stalked and poisoned by a racketeering gang using chemical weapons - and not being able to successfully engage the USA police or USA government on the issue - suggests there may be some value to the Russian approach.

It is interesting how everybody keeps accusing Russia with hardcore propaganda, dishonest, whitewashing ideology and then we read an article like this...

But that is not the only problem. The main problem is that the writer does not seem to understand the world we live in.
Our previous paradigm with "friends/allies/enemies", where everything was polarized and fragmented is no more.
Today we live in a globally interconnected and interdependent system where each and every person and nation connects together as cog wheels.

And since each and every person and nation - regardless of ideology, location, religion or culture - still operates based on self-serving calculations, trying to succeed at the expense of others we are actually all enemies of each other right now, steering our common boat towards a global disaster.
We do not have to become "friends", not even "allies".
As one of the other comments suggested we simply have to become partners, grudgingly, above our differences, distrust even hatred cooperating with each other in a mutually complementing manner since our collective survival depends on it.

I am a firm believer in and follower of Samuel P. Huntington's theory of ''The Clash of Civilizations''. ''This is a chart describing civilizational relationships predicted by Samuel Huntington, similar to one presented in his book The Clash of Civilizations'': https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Huntington_Clash_of_Civilizations_chart.gif
In this diagram the West has the most adversarial relations with the Islamic and Sinic/Chinese civilizations. Our relationship with Orthodox/Russian Civilization is semi-adversarial. Both the Orthodox/Russian and Western civilizations have an adversarial relationship with the Islamic/Middle Eastern Civilization i.e. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, etc., no matter if there are inner-civilizational divides and conflicts between Shia, Sunnis and Hebrews. I draw the conclusion from this, that Russia indeed is a partner, even though not a close ally as another commenter pointed out, in the fight against radical Islam. We, the West, need to partner with Russia in the fight against international terrorism, which is predominately Islamic. Russia can also be a potential partner when it comes to Sinic/Chinese cyber-aggression against the West in my opinion.

Given that he is dealing with the world's leading terrorist state and its NATO vassal states Putin's actions are completely understandable. He is actually emerging as one of the world's leading statesmen. If the West would only listen but we insist on being deaf, dumb and blind.

Obviously Russia isn't going to be the best ally, given the animosity between the US and RF. But i have to ask, "compared to who"? Compared to allies such as Saudi A. Or Turkey? Compared to allies such as the moderate rebels who fight alongside AQ affiliate Al Nusra?

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.